Iowa’s ‘Winnowing’ Role on the Line in Republican Caucuses

If Trump wins, it may threaten the state’s coveted status as the first test in the nominating process.

Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally in Clinton, Iowa.
AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall
S.V. Dáte
Add to Briefcase
S.V. Dáte
Jan. 31, 2016, 8 p.m.

DES MOINES, Iowa—Mer­ri­am-Web­ster defines the verb “win­now” this way: “To re­move (people or things that are less im­port­ant, de­sir­able, etc.) from a lar­ger group or list.”

If Don­ald Trump winds up win­ning the Iowa caucuses Monday night, that pre­cise defin­i­tion is prob­ably something that Iowa Re­pub­lic­ans who care about their role at the head of the pres­id­en­tial-nom­in­at­ing pro­cess hope the rest of the coun­try will over­look.

Oth­er­wise, they will have to ex­plain how a pop-cul­ture en­ter­tain­er with a seem­ingly tenu­ous grasp on world af­fairs, the func­tion­ing of the eco­nomy, and in­ter­na­tion­al trade has nev­er­the­less won their first-in-the-na­tion con­test with policy pro­nounce­ments that barely go bey­ond his cam­paign theme to “make Amer­ica great again.”

While tra­di­tion­al Re­pub­lic­ans around the coun­try might have the lux­ury of not un­der­stand­ing Trump’s ap­peal, it is, in the­ory, the job of Iowa Re­pub­lic­ans to as­sess his qual­i­fic­a­tions and policies. And should Trump par­lay his polling lead in­to ac­tu­al votes, it will once again call at­ten­tion to Iowa’s un­even per­form­ance in that role.

Un­like the cen­tury-old New Hamp­shire primary, the Iowa caucuses be­came a fix­ture in the pres­id­en­tial race re­l­at­ively re­cently, after Geor­gia Gov. Jimmy Carter rode a strong show­ing here to the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­a­tion in 1976. But while Iowa has fre­quently pres­aged nom­in­a­tion wins for its Demo­crat­ic caucus win­ners—Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008 are just the latest—its track re­cord choos­ing the Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­ee has been dis­mal.

Even in 1980, the first time that the Re­pub­lic­an caucuses were act­ively con­tested, win­ner George H.W. Bush was un­able to main­tain “the big mo” in­to New Hamp­shire, los­ing there to Ron­ald Re­agan, who went on to win the nom­in­a­tion. In 1988, as the sit­ting vice pres­id­ent, Bush came in third in Iowa, be­hind Sen. Bob Dole and tel­ev­an­gel­ist Pat Robertson, be­fore win­ning the nom­in­a­tion. In fact, only twice in the past 36 years has the Iowa win­ner gone on to head the GOP tick­et.

Be­cause of these res­ults, con­sult­ants, elec­ted of­fi­cials, and even voters who de­fend Iowa’s place in the pres­id­en­tial-nom­in­at­ing pro­cess use the word win­now­ing to de­scribe the state’s role.

“We take it ser­i­ously. I’d really hate to see it go away,” said Meg Cour­ter, a West Des Moines re­tir­ee. “It’s part of the win­now­ing pro­cess. We do this bet­ter than any­one else.”

In real­ity, though, any “win­now­ing” that hap­pens fol­low­ing a primary con­test oc­curs not be­cause can­did­ates do poorly in the vot­ing, but be­cause they run out of money. (Sen. John Mc­Cain, for ex­ample, fin­ished fifth in Iowa in 2000 after not really cam­paign­ing there. But after win­ning in New Hamp­shire later, he was able to raise enough money to stay in the race against George W. Bush through sev­er­al more primar­ies.)

And in that con­text, Iowa de­fend­ers have ar­gued over the years that the state’s voters get an hon­est sense of a can­did­ate away from the stage­craft and me­dia glare of a mod­ern cam­paign. And in get­ting the true meas­ure of a per­son, the ar­gu­ment goes, their as­sess­ment is more mean­ing­ful than those who only see can­did­ates at large ral­lies or on TV. Iow­ans’ judg­ment is to be trus­ted be­cause the can­did­ates come to big cit­ies and small towns and every­where in between and look caucus-go­ers in the eye as they ex­plain why they’re best suited for the job.

Yet if Trump man­ages to win Iowa any­way with large ral­lies and on TV—without hav­ing vis­ited voters’ liv­ing rooms, Amer­ic­an Le­gion halls, and oth­er small ven­ues—then why should Re­pub­lic­ans con­tin­ue to give Iowa any spe­cial re­gard? Or even per­mit it to al­ways go first, for that mat­ter?

The ques­tions are already troub­ling Iow­ans who care about the state’s spe­cial status.

“Trump is such an an­om­aly com­pared to what Iowa is used to,” said former Iowa GOP chair­man Matt Strawn. “If it’s a na­tion­al phe­nomen­on, it would be un­fair to point the fin­ger at Iowa.”

And that ap­pears to be the con­sensus re­sponse to the pos­sib­il­ity of a Trump win: that he rep­res­ents a con­flu­ence of na­tion­al celebrity, deep pock­ets, and brash­ness, un­likely to re­peat it­self any­time soon. Be­sides, if Iow­ans wind up giv­ing him a vic­tory, they have only done what any oth­er state would have done, ac­cord­ing to na­tion­al polling.

“There are way too many people who pay far too much at­ten­tion to real­ity TV,” Cour­ter said. “But would it be any dif­fer­ent any­where else?”

What We're Following See More »
“KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY”
Inspector General Report Found McCabe Lied To Investigators
5 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The Justice Department inspector general referred its finding that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly misled investigators who were examining a media disclosure to the top federal prosecutor in D.C. to determine whether McCabe should be charged with a crime." The referral occurred "after the inspector general concluded McCabe had lied to investigators or his own boss, then-FBI Director James B. Comey, on four occasions, three of them under oath." The referral does "not necessarily mean McCabe will be charge with a crime ... although the report alleged that one of McCabe’s lies 'was done knowingly and intentionally.'"

Source:
GOP APPOINTEES RULE AGAINST TRUMP
Court Rules Against Policy Punishing Sanctuary Cities
5 hours ago
THE LATEST

A federal appeals court in Chicago "upheld a nationwide injunction against making federal grant funding contingent on cooperation with immigration enforcement." The three Republican appointees ruled that the Trump administration "exceeded its legal authority in trying to implement the new conditions without approval from Congress ... One judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, Reagan appointee Daniel Manion, said he would narrow the injunction solely to protect Chicago. However, the two other judges assigned to the case said the nationwide injunction appeared to be justified."

Source:
BUT PLEDGES TO HAVE A VOTE
Grassley Delays Markup of Protect-Mueller Bill
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley "decided Thursday to delay markup" on a bill to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller until next week. But he remains steadfast in his support for a committee vote, despite Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's "pledge to kill it" if it gets to the floor.

Source:
ARMISTICE MAY BECOME PEACE AGREEMENT
North Korea Looking for Denuclearization of Peninsula
11 hours ago
THE LATEST

North Korea has expressed its commitment to 'complete denuclearisation' of the Korean peninsula and is not seeking conditions, South Korean President Moon Jae-in said on Thursday. ... South Korea announced on Wednesday that it is considering how to change a decades-old armistice with North Korea into a peace agreement as it prepares for the North-South summit this month." The leaders of the respective countries are also expected to connect a phone line so they can communicate directly.

Source:
NO IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT DUTIES
Deal Reached to Send California National Guard to Border
11 hours ago
THE LATEST

"California reached an agreement with the federal government that the state’s National Guard troops will deploy to the border to focus on fighting transnational gangs as well as drug and gun smugglers, Gov. Jerry Brown said. ... Brown said Wednesday he secured federal funding for terms similar to those outlined in last week’s proposed contract: The Guard cannot handle custody duties for anyone accused of immigration violations, build border barriers or have anything to do with immigration enforcement."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login